When The Justified Becomes An Unjustified Victim?

This has been one of the most disturbing cases for so many reasons. It bothers me that Trayvon Martin's life has no meaning to some people. I am trying to understand what made this young man wrong for defending himself and Zimmerman right. Juror B37 claims racism wasn't a factor; then she profiles Martin's best friend. There is so much wrong here.

I have removed the later portion of my post so that no one else is offended by my opinion. When will it ever end?

you must not have followed any of the testimony. I suppose you can make up what ever. the issue at center stage is the idea of stand your ground. not who did what...that is clear from the proceedings and the verdict.

And yet all of the Jurors had returned a verdict of not guilty, everyone who watched the interview knew that she was expressing her own opinion and viewpoints on the questions asked by Anderson Cooper.

Although we may never know, I would be interested in how, if B37 is correct, the jury went moved away from their initial straw poll of 3 to acquit, 2 for manslaughter, and 1 for second degree murder. First impressions generally are pretty valid. Was B37 the dominant juror that swayed the others to vote to acquit "George?" Her husband is an attorney and she may have used that "pulpit" to cite the law...the "stand your ground" law.

While some will argue that the "stand your ground" law was the real deciding factor that swayed the jury, I would not have been so accommodating to that strict interpretation and indeed it's applicability or non-applicability to the evidence...or non-evidence. The jury did indeed have latitude to convict, regardless of what that law says. Otherwise the case would not have gone to the jury. The fact that B37 cites that law as the basis for their verdict is an excuse...but it's not a carefully reasoned argument based on all the evidence...or even reasonable doubt.

I think the three jury members who initially wanted to convict, caved...perhaps because they were so tired on a Saturday night after a long drawn out trial. But that's my opinion. I wasn't there. So I'm being judgmental like everyone else on cable TV.

Greetings my friend. I followed the story and if you had understood my statement the key words were "I don't believe", I didn't ask for anyone's opinion on my belief. And yes I understand that everyone has converted their attention to the Stand Your Ground Law. What everyone seems to have lost sight of is the fact that Trayvon Martin wasn't the aggressor in this, therefore the Stand Your Ground Law should have worked for him. So, who does the Stand Your Ground work for? Well we all know the answer to that! If I offended you in my post then my apology to you.

whyme Wrote: Greetings my friend. I followed the story and if you had understood my statement the key words were "I don't believe", I didn't ask for anyone's opinion on my belief. And yes I understand that everyone has converted their attention to the Stand Your Ground Law. What everyone seems to have lost sight of is the fact that Trayvon Martin wasn't the aggressor in this, therefore the Stand Your Ground Law should have worked for him. So, who does the Stand Your Ground work for? Well we all know the answer to that! If I offended you in my post then my apology to you.

Your point of view is very poignant, whyme. It is a shame that George Zimmerman was let off because the jury felt that he had a right to stand his ground in something that he started in the first place. I strongly feel that if the roles were reversed and Trayvon Martin was the shooter, that the verdict would have been different. We must not forget that George Zimmerman stalked and shot an unarmed teenager through the heart. He was exonerated because the jury believed him, but I am rather pessimistic when it comes to believing the jury would have come to the same conclusion if Trayvon was the shooter that night.

You still insist that George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin, which is not true, the Jury did not consider that as a fact, Trayvon came up on George as he was returning to car and confronted him as to why he was following him and then struck him, knocking down with a broken nose, that is not stalking in any broader sense of the meaning of the word stalking, you also should not assume what a jury would have done if the roles were reversed, you also make it seem ,IMO, that if a Jury believes a certain way and its contrary to what you believe ,that means that the Jury came to the wrong decision, forgetting for the moment that the jury only had those facts presented to them to rely on for their decision, unlike you, who had only the facts that you wanted to hear and believe, and any gaps in your theory you fill in with speculation and a bunch of could haves, for me I will always trust the and respect the verdict of a jury, even if I disagree with it.

Greetings to you. I can see that you are completely hooked on the theory that was portrayed for you as many others. However, the fact remains that the young man would still be "ALIVE" had Zimmerman minded his business and let that child walk home as he was doing. Until Trayvon committed a crime he should have just stayed in the car. It wasn't any of his business where he was coming from or going for that matter, it's a free country. How dare you contend that Zimmerman, who was off duty, had the right to take an innocent matter into his own hands, simply because he has a problem with color, and a gun to support his feelings. All of the jurors going in didn't believe he was innocent, they where misguided in their instructions and lead to believe they could only base their verdict according to the few seconds before the shot was fired; so from the judge to the attorneys, it all was unjustified to make an innocent young man a criminal for walking home and made to be afraid in doing so. You can feel however you want too, it's not hard to read between your lines of thinking. I pray no child walks through your neighborhood unidentified!